16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1160b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1612PAUL
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Ambiguity
TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a/a/o CALEB PAUL, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 07-CC-14826. September 18, 2009. John E. Jordan, Judge. Counsel: Chad A. Barr, Eiffert & Associate, P.A., Orlando. Timothy Kazee, Vernis & Bowling of Central Florida, Deland.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SERVED ON AUGUST 14, 2009
THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification and/or Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement and, being considered by the Court and otherwise being fully advised of the premises; it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification is hereby GRANTED.
2. On or about August 14, 2009, the Defendant, DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, served a Proposal for Settlement on the Plaintiff, TAMPA CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a/a/o CALEB PAUL.
3. On or about August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement served on August 14, 2009.
4. In its Motion, the Plaintiff primarily took issue with paragraph 4 of the Defendant’s August 14, 2009 Proposal for Settlement.
5. Specifically, paragraph 4 of the Defendant’s August 14, 2009 Proposal for Settlement states as follows:
The Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement is in the amount of $2,404.00 for the alleged breach of contract for failure to pay No Fault benefits, inclusive of interest, and the additional amount of $6,500.00 for Attorney’s fees and costs, for a total of $8,904.00, which includes satisfaction of all remaining claims alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, inclusive of any interest and attorney’s fees and costs. (emphasis in original)
6. The Court finds that the Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement as drafted is ambiguous in regards to enforcement.
